Rape victims face tougher court quiz

Women who make rape allegations should no longer be shielded from courtroom cross-examination about any previous sexual relationship with the accused, Law Lords ruled yesterday.

It defies commons sense for there to be a bar on such questioning, they said.

The ruling, which brings in an important change to a New Labour law protecting women from defence lawyers who trawl through an accuser's sexual history, offended women's groups.

It is also likely to mark the end of five years of political efforts to encourage more women to give evidence in rape cases and to efforts to make it harder for the accused to challenge the charge.

The decision will affect 13 cases currently in the pipeline. In all of them, defendants want to tell juries about consenting sexual relations with their accusers before the allegations of rape.

The Lords have decided that Section 41 of the 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act can no longer be used to stifle a claim by a defendant that the victim had consented to sex on occasions before the alleged rape.

Section 41 says that no evidence or cross-examination of an alleged rape victim about her sexual behaviour can be heard except in specific circumstances.

The five Law Lords said that women should not be harassed in the witness box, but that judges should decide what evidence is relevant based on

whether it would 'endanger the fairness of the trial'.

Lord Slynn said it was well-established that a rape complainant should not be challenged about her sexual relationships with men other than the accused.

To allow unfair 'harassment' of a woman over her sexual history was unjust to the woman and bad for society because women would be deterred from bringing complaints.

He added: 'The need to protect women from harassment in the witness box is fundamental.

'It must not be lost sight of, but I suspect the man or woman in the street would find it strange that evidence that two young people who had lived together, or regularly, as part of a happy relationship, had had sexual acts together, must be wholly excluded on the issue of consent.'

He went on: 'The accused is entitled to a fair trial.'

Lord Steyn said: 'As a matter of common sense, a prior sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant.'

A rule that said such evidence could not be heard 'increases the danger of miscarriages of justice', Lord Steyn added.

The ruling came following a rape trial which was halted because the accused wanted to refer to recent allegedly consensual sex with his accuser.

It means that a trial judge can now make his own decision on what evidence can be heard --and that the 1999 Act will no longer be seen as banning all evidence about a woman's past sexual conduct.

Julie Bindel, of the pressure group Justice for Women, said: 'This ruling leaves far too many loopholes for a man to bring in irrelevant previous sexual evidence.

'It means men will be able to invent sexual relationships in an attempt to destroy a woman's reputation before the jury.'